# Move over FDA, another league of idiots wants in on destroying the tobacco industry



## Magnificent_Bastard (Feb 29, 2012)

Get the UN out of the US. And everyone's business...
_
MOSCOW - The U.N.'s World Health Organization on Tuesday approved a measure committing countries around the world to sharply raise excise taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products, a key step to what critics warn will be a push for a global tax on tobacco._
_Meeting in Moscow this week, WHO delegates, representing 179 countries and about 90 percent of the world's population, voted to move ahead on implementing a key part of the 2003 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The WHO is the public health arm of the United Nations._
_The international tobacco tax provision would commit the countries who signed the U.N. antitobacco agreement - nearly every major nation except for the United States _(that won't be too long)_, Switzerland and Indonesia - to enact an excise tax equal to at least 70 percent of the retail price of tobacco products._
_The gathering got off to a controversial start when delegates voted to bar members of the media, including a credentialed reporter for The Washington Times, from attending key convention and plenary events._
_U.S. and Canadian representatives are also boycotting the event to protest host Russia's recent incursions in the conflict with neighboring Ukraine._
_WHO officials said the tax was justified because tobacco creates an economic burden on society owing to higher health care costs for tobacco-related disease. More than two-thirds of the parties to the organization's treaty reported an increase in tobacco taxes in 2014._
_According to the WHO's report, "Parties that have increased tobacco taxes in general experience a corresponding increase in tobacco prices and, in some of those countries, a tax-driven reduction in tobacco consumption has been documented."_
_WHO Director-General Margaret Chan told delegates at the opening of the five-day gathering that it was vital to take on an industry and an addiction that the agency says is responsible for an estimated 6 million deaths worldwide each years._
_"I am proud to be the No. 1 enemy of the tobacco industry," Ms. Chan said. "That is a badge of honor for me."_
_But critics warn a uniform global tax won't work and will only encourage smuggling and illegal trade in tobacco products without cutting down on smoking rates._
_"One size does not fit all," said American economist Arthur Laffer. "Tobacco regulation and taxation are complex matters that require consideration of a number of political, economic and demographic factors prior to deciding on tax structures and levels."_
_New York-based cigarette giant Philip Morris International echoed Mr. Laffer's criticisms._
_The world's governments "don't need international organizations to tell them which tax structure and tax level best match their domestic economic and social conditions," Philip Morris spokeswoman Iro Antoniadou told the Agence France-Presse news service this week._
_*Taxes and smuggling*_
_Mr. Laffer, an expert on tax policy and a member of President Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board in the 1980s, quit smoking more than 40 years ago. He even lost his mother to lung cancer. Mr. Laffer told The Washington Times that if he had one single wish, it would be to eliminate all tobacco addiction. He said he agrees "100 percent" with the WHO goal of cutting global tobacco use._
_But, "if you raise tax rates and cause people to smuggle cigarettes ... it's not wonderful," said Mr. Laffer, who released his own tobacco analysis titled "Handbook of Tobacco Taxation: Theory and Practice," in which he criticizes the blanket approach on tobacco taxation._
_Mr. Laffer said that a global tobacco tax may simply push smokers to the more dangerous and unregulated black market. "The difference between tobacco and heroin is that the government follows and is in touch with tobacco smokers," he said._
_The Framework Convention Alliance, an organization that advocates for global tobacco control, highlighted a 2010 WHO study that concludes that increasing tobacco taxes by 50 percent in some 22 low-income countries would generate roughly $1.4 billion in funds, money which could increase health spending by 50 percent in these countries._
_The WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control favors introducing smoke-free public places, banning tobacco advertising and requiring pictorial health warnings on cigarette packages in addition to increasing taxes._
_But Mr. Laffer points to Australia, where the graphic pictures of the dangers of tobacco use have not lived up to their backers' hopes._
_"Australia has this thing where they put disgusting pictures on the back of cigarettes," Mr. Laffer said, but smokers just buy fake packs, or different containers, to carry around their cigarettes after they are purchased. He believes that tobacco users - especially smokers - "want nicotine from tobacco and will go to incredible lengths to get it."_
_Andrei Muchnik, a spokesman for the World Health Organization, declined comment on the Tuesday vote, but WHO officials reject the idea that the vote to implement the Convention's Article 6 amounts to a U.N.-mandated global tobacco tax._
_Article 6 states that, "without prejudice to sovereign right of the parties to determine and establish taxation policies," signatory countries should adopt measures including implementing tax and price policies that reduce tobacco use and "prohibiting or restricting, as appropriate, sales to and/or importations by international travellers of tax- and duty-free tobacco products."_
_"The guidelines do not impose a minimum tax rate on cigarettes, but will be a tool that will allow each state to pursue a policy to determine the appropriate tax level," Martin Logan, a spokesman for the Framework Convention Alliance, an NGO that supports the treaty, told the Agence France-Presse._
_⦁ Alex Swoyer reported from Washington. This article was based in part on wire service reports.
_
U.N.'s World Health Organization urges global tobacco tax hike - Washington Times


----------



## KungFumeta (Aug 7, 2014)

Start building your stash and stocking your pipe tobacco cellars, because there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that smoking will be gone by 2040. Perhaps much, much sooner than that in the western hemisphere.
It might not get banned outright, but they're gonna keep raising taxes and running ratarded, sensationalist and agressive "public awareness" campaigns until they kill the cigarette industry right off. With the cigarette industry gone there's going to be very, very little incentive for anyone to grow tobacco on an industrial scale. When industrial tobacco growth is gone, the smaller cigar leaf growers will also start suffering because their suppliers will be gone with the industry and also don't forget that even dog rockets will be costing 20$ in the near future, killing demand.

Its bleak guys... but perhaps i'm just too much of a pessimist, if anyone has good reasons to think otherwise i'd love to hear them!


----------



## shortnub (Jan 24, 2014)

A badge of honor for the WHO would have been to prevent Ebola spreading when they could have acted. They still claim they don't have the resources for that. Their priorities clearly don't include our health.


----------



## Tobias Lutz (Feb 18, 2013)

KungFumeta said:


> Start building your stash and *stocking your pipe tobacco cellars*, because there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that smoking will be gone by 2040. Perhaps much, much sooner than that in the western hemisphere.
> Its bleak guys... but perhaps i'm just too much of a pessimist, if anyone has good reasons to think otherwise i'd love to hear them!


I think you're dead on for the most part which is why I've got a celler that will last me into my 90s (and I don't expect I'll live that long) ipe:


----------



## Bruck (Jan 8, 2013)

Another good reason to start growing and rolling your own! (I haven't start the first half of that but it's on my list).


----------



## Trackmyer (Jun 6, 2014)

Its sad watching the government label legal tobacco as a major sin, while they push to legalize marijuana. But I suppose its no different than NYC banning large sugary drinks but its ok to buy a case of beer at 8am. So instead of a 24oz. Sweet tea and a cigar, I will just have to opt for a dime bag of pot and a case of Bud. Oh yeah, this will make me much healthier. 

So screwed up.


----------



## Sigaar (Sep 19, 2014)

Guns, ammo, cigars, whisky (to name a few)...stock-up!


----------



## SeanTheEvans (Dec 13, 2013)

Trackmyer said:


> Its sad watching the government label legal tobacco as a major sin, while they push to legalize marijuana. But I suppose its no different than NYC banning large sugary drinks but its ok to buy a case of beer at 8am. So instead of a 24oz. Sweet tea and a cigar, I will just have to opt for a dime bag of pot and a case of Bud. Oh yeah, this will make me much healthier.
> 
> So screwed up.


I understand being upset with regulation of tobacco, but why pick a fight with pot and booze? Neither of them are necessarily dangerous, or more dangerous than soda or tobacco.

TBH, the article seemed to be directed, again, mostly at cigarettes, although yeah, I know cigars can be collateral damage in that case.

Although the whole "stock up" thing is an industry scare-tactic to me, always wanting more from the consumer wallets. Look at how crazy bullet and gun prices went a year or two ago.... still can go buy your guns and bullets whenever you wanna (not me, of course).


----------



## stealthpenguin (Oct 2, 2014)

Trackmyer said:


> Its sad watching the government label legal tobacco as a major sin, while they push to legalize marijuana.


I've got to stand up for the weed crusaders - I know a lot (a lot!) of people here in CO at least who voted to legalize because we were tired of paying to have people thrown in prison for their recreation, not because we bought the argument that it was healthier than tobacco or booze.

Watching the FDA lay waste to everything in its path because big tobacco is afraid of e-cigs is a travesty all by itself, we don't need to drag the good work that decriminalization has done into it.


----------



## KungFumeta (Aug 7, 2014)

Tobias Lutz said:


> I think you're dead on for the most part which is why I've got a celler that will last me into my 90s (and I don't expect I'll live that long) ipe:


To stock up my cellar so it'll last me beyond 80-85 would set me back around 10.000€ at current prices at 1 bowl per day. I'm screwed whatever I do.


----------



## Trackmyer (Jun 6, 2014)

SeanTheEvans said:


> I understand being upset with regulation of tobacco, but why pick a fight with pot and booze? Neither of them are necessarily dangerous, or more dangerous than soda or tobacco.
> 
> TBH, the article seemed to be directed, again, mostly at cigarettes, although yeah, I know cigars can be collateral damage in that case.
> 
> Although the whole "stock up" thing is an industry scare-tactic to me, always wanting more from the consumer wallets. Look at how crazy bullet and gun prices went a year or two ago.... still can go buy your guns and bullets whenever you wanna (not me, of course).





stealthpenguin said:


> I've got to stand up for the weed crusaders - I know a lot (a lot!) of people here in CO at least who voted to legalize because we were tired of paying to have people thrown in prison for their recreation, not because we bought the argument that it was healthier than tobacco or booze.
> 
> Watching the FDA lay waste to everything in its path because big tobacco is afraid of e-cigs is a travesty all by itself, we don't need to drag the good work that decriminalization has done into it.


Its not that I am strongly against those things, it didnt come across the way I wanted. The point I was trying to make was how the Government seems very hypocritical. Breathing smoke into your lungs is harmful, doesn't matter if its pot, cigar, or your fireplace. My issue is how they try to single out one side while fight to make the other side o.k. I think that is screwed up.

Same as beverages. Sugar drinks do lead to obesity, but booze has created tons of issues, health risks, drunk driving accidents, AA, etc, of its own. I like my scotch. But I also enjoy a soda from time to time and take issue with the government telling me what is good for me and what is bad. When everything out there is bad to an extent when done in extreme.

Bottom line, the government is jacked.


----------



## Tobias Lutz (Feb 18, 2013)

Trackmyer said:


> Its not that I am strongly against those things, it didnt come across the way I wanted. The point I was trying to make was how the Government seems very hypocritical. Breathing smoke into your lungs is harmful, doesn't matter if its pot, cigar, or your fireplace. My issue is how they try to single out one side while fight to make the other side o.k. I think that is screwed up.


Preach, brother!


----------



## stealthpenguin (Oct 2, 2014)

Trackmyer said:


> Its not that I am strongly against those things, it didnt come across the way I wanted. The point I was trying to make was how the Government seems very hypocritical. Breathing smoke into your lungs is harmful, doesn't matter if its pot, cigar, or your fireplace. My issue is how they try to single out one side while fight to make the other side o.k. I think that is screwed up.
> 
> Same as beverages. Sugar drinks do lead to obesity, but booze has created tons of issues, health risks, drunk driving accidents, AA, etc, of its own. I like my scotch. But I also enjoy a soda from time to time and take issue with the government telling me what is good for me and what is bad. When everything out there is bad to an extent when done in extreme.
> 
> Bottom line, the government is jacked.


Sure, I mean tobacco has had the public health bullseye on it for a long time but they tried prohibition with alcohol and pot before they came after smokers, tried throwing those folks in prison, and how did that work out? $30 billion a year on a failed drug war. So I am pretty skeptical when I hear public health officials talking about eliminating tobacco or taxing it to death because they're falling into the same all-or-nothing mindset.

Smoking a cigar or a pipe can be harm reduction in some cases, same as people who use vaporizers, but I don't hear any of these folks talking about harm reduction, only taxes and regulations that are designed to keep lower-harm options out of people's hands. I don't read this story as government being jacked so much as bought and paid for by people with a lot more money than me


----------



## SeanTheEvans (Dec 13, 2013)

Trackmyer said:


> Bottom line, the government is jacked.


It's funny because the government is just a bunch of people, like us. There's no individual "government" unit running around trying to ruin smoking. It comes from pressure from people who share these beliefs and want to force them upon other people. Money plays a part too.

Trust me, it's not a hypocritical government, it's an uninformed and hypocritical population that wants to be pampered and babied, but cries out "government control!" when any of the multitudes of changes they demand come about.

I would love to have my cake and eat it too, too.


----------



## Tobias Lutz (Feb 18, 2013)

SeanTheEvans said:


> It's funny because the government is just a bunch of people, like us. There's no individual "government" unit running around trying to ruin smoking. It comes from pressure from people who share these beliefs and want to force them upon other people. Money plays a part too.
> 
> *Trust me, it's not a hypocritical government, it's an uninformed and hypocritical population that wants to be pampered and babied, but cries out "government control!" when any of the multitudes of changes they demand come about.*
> I would love to have my cake and eat it too, too.


This works great if you believe every citizen carries equal potential in regards to contribution within the political spectrum. I however tend to believe that only a very few actually have much say and that govenment is in turn representational of _their_ interests and _their_ whims. Not that I don't agree about the ignorance and hypocritical nature of the average citizen- I just don't think it has much to do with it.


----------



## SeanTheEvans (Dec 13, 2013)

Tobias Lutz said:


> This works great if you believe every citizen carries equal potential in regards to contribution within the political spectrum. I however tend to believe that only a very few actually have much say and that government is in turn representational of _their_ interests and _their_ whims. Not that I don't agree about the ignorance and hypocritical nature of the average citizen- I just don't think it has much to do with it.


While that is a possibility, I would argue that when the population is well-informed and cares about their own collective future, that they have the ability to do something about any government that would deny them their wishes. 
I will use the American Revolution as my main example, but there are countless smaller instances where people decided that they would take action against a corrupt government (think even on a smaller level, in towns and communities) rather than let it happen and use the ol' "it's not within my power" excuse.

It is only with mass complacency that any government can begin to enact decisions that are not the collective will of the population.

But I understand that in reality, money plays a large part, and some people therefore have a larger "vote" than others. :nod: Still, that people work a job to pay the bills and and claim to be "kept busy" doing that is no excuse to complain about what is going on around them, particularly if they feel it effects them in such a way that they should speak out about it. If all the people who didn't want tycoons to rule the world would stop handing all of their money over to them, the field might be a little more level as well.

Then again, talk is cheap I guess that's why there so much more of that than action:biggrin:

*On topic,* it seems again that this article is mostly about cigarettes, although unfortunately Premium Cigars get lumped in with those under "tobacco".

I think awareness distinguishing the differences can be a very important ally. I'd like to see studies of how much the health-related costs of Premium Cigar smokers costs an economy, and how much those individuals dump back into it as well.


----------



## KungFumeta (Aug 7, 2014)

SeanTheEvans said:


> While that is a possibility, I would argue that when the population is well-informed and cares about their own collective future, that they have the ability to do something about any government that would deny them their wishes.


I think it's not so much to do with being informed or caring about their collective future as it is about hunger and money. The only reason anyone has ever staged a successful revolution with the people's support has been because they people were starving or their pockets were being messed with.

I honestly don't believe such a thing as a well-informed population actually exists...


----------



## SeanTheEvans (Dec 13, 2013)

KungFumeta said:


> I think it's not so much to do with being informed or caring about their collective future as it is about hunger and money. The only reason anyone has ever staged a successful revolution with the people's support has been because they people were starving or their pockets were being messed with.
> 
> I honestly don't believe such a thing as a well-informed population actually exists...


Well it certainly doesn't exist here in the US....

Education Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rankings Of Countries In Math And Science - Business Insider


----------



## pmr1010 (Jul 13, 2013)

Stock up while you can!


----------



## TAB (Dec 5, 2013)

Fun times. Ain't it a great world in which we live?


----------



## Trackmyer (Jun 6, 2014)

SeanTheEvans said:


> While that is a possibility, I would argue that when the population is well-informed and cares about their own collective future, that they have the ability to do something about any government that would deny them their wishes.
> I will use the American Revolution as my main example, but there are countless smaller instances where people decided that they would take action against a corrupt government (think even on a smaller level, in towns and communities) rather than let it happen and use the ol' "it's not within my power" excuse.
> 
> It is only with mass complacency that any government can begin to enact decisions that are not the collective will of the population.
> ...


Now this I disagree with. Though I may not know all the players by name, I put my money where my mouth is. I donate time and money, quite a bit of money for a working class fella to help preserve my hunting and firearm rights. Ive protested the Governor of NY trying to influence a repeal of the NYSafe Act. A cheap, dirty deal he pulled in the wee hours of the night. You cannot drive across the state without seeing Repeal Safe Act signs in yards of every town of every county. The NRA has tried, SCOPE has tried. Some lawyers in Buffalo have filed suit. And where are we? No closer now than day one. Why? Because of the "State Government". Not me, my peers, my town folks, but the government. I vote at the booth every chance I get, does me no good as a Republican in a Democrat state. I will vote again this next time around, reality tells me though to expect nothing good to come from it. Cuomo is too wealthy, too powerful, too well spoken, and I really do not see any person beating him in an election. No matter how many groups I belong to, or the money I give, nothing is getting better. Democrats in office in NY like people to be dependant on the government for their entitlements. I prefer to be left alone, pay my own way, and keep people out of my backyard telling me what is good for me and what is bad. 
I agree to the fact that there are a ton of uninformed, that walk around with their heads in the clouds, enjoying their free Obama phones. Then there are those of us, pissed off to be footing the bill, paying more for our health ins., school taxes, local, county, state, and federal taxes. watching the government overstep time and time again with their desire to rule my life and my wallet. Politicians have always been greasy weasels. But they seem to be getting much better at getting folks to join their causes. Want a new gun law,wait for some jackass nut job to do some random act of violence and jump all over it. You will get your new law. They play off emotion of the public and get the backing they desire. Why? Todo what the people want? NO, to feed their own ego. To go down in history as the ONE to create this new law, to further their own personal career down the road.


----------



## Trackmyer (Jun 6, 2014)

Furthermore, since my soap box is still holding me up. Do not take my Obama phone comment as a show of my opinion on government programs. I have no issue with welfare, food stamps, or other government funded programs paid for by us taxpayers to help those who have fell upon hard times. To help get them thru the hard times until they are back on their feet.
Its what they are designed for.

The problem is, the masses who have no desire to pay their own way. They feel they deserve to be taken care of. And they will continue to vote for the people giving them those benefits. Bringing much more votes to the polls than my vote can muster.

Just didnt want folks thinking I was some non caring hardass. And my soapbox is broke now, so I will step down.....

I was wayyyyy off topic anyhow. And I apologize to the OP.


----------



## MarkC (Jul 4, 2009)

Trackmyer said:


> I agree to the fact that there are a ton of uninformed, that walk around with their heads in the clouds, enjoying their free Obama phones.


When accusing people of being uninformed, it probably helps not to refer to a program started in 1996 as "free Obama phones"...


----------



## Trackmyer (Jun 6, 2014)

Haha, true, but it wasn't in 96 when the program took off in leaps and bounds with mailers arriving at the house every month or so trying to get me to apply for one. My "Obama phone" comment reminds me off the tv spot that got huge airtime showing a lady looking at the camera holding up her free phone and saying "Thanks Obama"

Which is actually a program paid for by phone companies. But they arent giving it for free. The tab for it is picked up on each of our cell phone bills each month as a charge. So yeah. We pay for that too.

Though you can go to www.obamaphone.com if you would like. Since it is an actual place to get one.


----------



## MarkC (Jul 4, 2009)

Trackmyer said:


> So yeah. We pay for that too.


Ain't no doubt about that!


----------



## Trackmyer (Jun 6, 2014)

MarkC said:


> Ain't no doubt about that!


Since Im already so far off the OP's topic, which again, sorry. I do have to say, I always smile when I see your avatar on this forum. That picture is superb. Very classy, and funny, very nice.


----------



## MarkC (Jul 4, 2009)

Thanks! Search for The Oatmeal if you want to see more from the artist. If I could just work a book and a hockey stick into the thing, I'd have all my obsessions covered!


----------



## MDSPHOTO (Sep 10, 2013)

The more entrenched that govt gets in the delivery of healthcare the more our liberties will be impacted plain and simple. Now that the govt is paying for, I mean WE are paying for, costs associated with treating diabetes and lung cancer they are going to limit are enjoyment of sodas, fast food and cigars. The problem is indeed the hypocrisy by our legislators that smoke, hell the mayor of Atlanta was just gushing on our local news station about smokin stogies with Usher. And if you ever been in the Rayburn building on capitol hill at lunch time, you would clearly see its a do as we say, not do as we do nation.


----------



## El wedo del milagro (Jul 3, 2012)

KungFumeta said:


> I honestly don't believe such a thing as a well-informed population actually exists...


One of my favorite quotes: The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

(Winston Churchill)


----------



## Stinky (Mar 27, 2006)

The anti-tobacco movement is very popular & world wide. They fight dirty with lots of lies & false statistics. While I am very active with *Cigar Rights of America*, all this really ain't about tobacco (or cigars) . . . it's REALLY about taking away our freedom(s).

Today it's tobacco & cigars, then soda, then food content, they everything else we enjoy. Remember the old sage advice: "_*Pick your battles!*_" Well, I don't have the resources to fight a war, so I choose my battle; and joined up with *CRA *

Do you guys want to help out? Or, do you just want to sit around a bitch about it? Why wouldn't you join *CRA*? One guy said: "*It's like voting. My vote (or membership) won't make a difference.*" .. .. .. wow! What a terribly apathetic perspective!

Think about this:
What could happen if *EVERYONE *who enjoyed fine cigars joined *CRA*? What if every cigar enthusiast sent one letter (note or e-mail) to their congressional representatives?

Or, for the "_Negative Nancys_" .. .. .. think about this:
What if nobody stood up (and took action) to the anti-tobacco movement?


----------



## stealthpenguin (Oct 2, 2014)

So I gotta ask, @Stinky, what does CRA do? Is it just a letter writing campaign? A google news search shows 1 story in Cigar Aficionado about a Nebraska indoor smoking ban that quotes Glynn Loope of CRA complaining about the Nebraska Supreme Court ruling. Nothing else. The Board of Directors is full of cigar guys, Padron, Fuente, LFD, etc. so it looks pretty industry-oriented, but it's like you guys don't exist beyond a webpage and a call to write letters.

What's my $35 buy? The press releases stop in 2013. There was one in 2013. 2 in 2011.

If I wanted to donate $35 to Padron I'd buy some sticks. I'm not sure what CRA does with that money that makes it worth a donation?


----------

